Author: Joseph Dewey

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Categories of Gods

September 7, 2026 Joseph Dewey

Categories of Gods

Since there has been discussion of late of the various categories of Gods perhaps, I should add my thoughts.

There are only two categories which are as follows.

[1] The One Great Life whose body is the universe itself and all things in it. This life is often merely called The Source, or Universal Intelligence by disciples who seek to understand the mysteries of godliness.

[2] Other lives who have established a degree of oneness with The Source, have freed themselves from some limitations, accumulated significant intelligence and are dedicated to manifesting the Purpose of the One Great Life. To manifest this purpose they become a light to those who dwell in darkness until the light in the sender and receiver is one and all see through the eyes of pure Spirit.

Some call those in category two gods, but others call them Masters and they come in many grades.

Humans seem to be gods to the animal kingdom. Christ and his masters seem to be gods to us. The Ancient of Days seems to be a god to Christ and the Solar Logos seems to be a god to the Ancient of Days and so on up the line.

How far up the Hierarchy it goes is difficult to say. Some think it stretches indefinitely, but I do not think so. I believe the hierarchies in the universe are in the process of forming and that the Universal Logos has not yet fully manifested. The highest life mentioned by DK is the One About Whom Nothing Can Be Said who presides over seven solar systems. I do not think a fully conscious Galactic Logos has evolved yet.

If there is a third category of Gods it would be the false gods. These are those in the world and out of the world who set themselves up as a beastly authority that seeks to be worshipped and obeyed as if they are God, but in reality, they share no oneness with the Source and take seekers away from the true God instead of closer.

A reader wonders if the Jews came from Saturn. Very doubtful. DK tells us that they came from a previous solar system. During the previous solar system neither the earth, Saturn or the Sun even existed. They were not yet created.

The Jews and the earth in general have a strong link to the Lord of Saturn and it is possible that this link goes back to a previous solar system. There is definitely an untold history in this solar system that has yet to be told.

Question: It surprises me that DK is so adamant about the no discussion policy, that he would forbid the healer to continue should they slip up! Any thoughts?

JJ: He teaches this because of the principle that “energy follows thought.” After the healing process is finished the healer should shift the attention of those involved to small talk or another subject not connected to the patient or healing. This keeps the healing energy within the wall of focus creating during the healing ceremony. If the group sits around talking about the patient, the disease, etc afterwards then the healing energy becomes dissipated.

This is a very common mistake healers make.

Strange Experience

Here’s an interesting account by my great great great grandfather while he was a missionary in England in the days of Joseph Smith:

“The prospect in London at that time was the darkest it had ever been in since entering the vineyard; but the Lord was with us, and we were not discouraged. On Sunday we met with the Saints three times at Brother Corner’s, read the Book of Mormon, gave instruction, and broke bread unto them. We had a good time, though there were only about half a dozen present. I felt the spirit bear testimony that there would be a work done in London.

“Having retired to rest in good season, I fell asleep and slept until midnight, when I awoke and meditated upon the things of God until 3 o’clock in the morning; and, while forming a determination to warn the people in London and by the assistance and inspiration of God to overcome the power of darkness, a person appeared to me, whom I consider was the prince of darkness. He made war upon me, and attempted to take my life. As he was about to overcome me I prayed to the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, for help. I then had power over him and he left me, though I was much wounded. Afterwards three persons dressed in white came to me and prayed with me, and I was healed immediately of all my wounds, and delivered of all my troubles.”

There is as much confusion in the world of the gods as in ours. – Euripides

Taken From: WILFORD WOODRUFF

History of His Life and Labors

By MATTHIAS F. COWLEY, Page 130.

Aug 30, 2013

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

The Subconscious and Mind

September 5, 2026 Joseph Dewey

The Subconscious and Mind

There seems to be some confusion over my teachings on the subconscious mind. Do we have consciousness there or not? I previously stated this:

“There is no such thing as a subconscious mind. It’s an oxymoron. If you have a subconscious mind it means it’s below the threshold of your consciousness. If it’s below consciousness, then it’s not consciousness. Consciousness is only something that’s conscious. You don’t have a subconscious mind any more than your computer has a subconscious mind. You have computer programs that run various parts of yourself and this is what they call the subconscious. If you tell a psychologist that he’ll think you’re crazy but think about the oxymoron here. If something is below your consciousness how can it really be conscious?”

In making this statement I was clearing up the language by indicating that our subconscious mind deserves a more accurate name. If we have no conscious participation in what is going on within its sphere then it is not a part of our consciousness.

Here’s the dictionary definition of “consciousness.”

“An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation.”

Since we as entities are not aware of what is happening in what is called the subconscious then it is not a part of our waking consciousness. Consciousness is aware of what is happening.

Does this mean there is no consciousness in our brain, our cells and the atoms of our body? No it doesn’t mean that but it does mean that the consciousness of the many tiny lives that live there are separate from your own waking consciousness. There is some type of consciousness everywhere, even in the computer you are using.

However, the programming that resides in a computer happens not because of the work of the tiny lives there, but because a human intelligence created it. The programming and response you get from your computer makes that aspect seem more conscious than the atoms and molecules that compose it, but it is not. A program is not consciousness, but consciousness uses programming.

There is a lot of programming in your brain and you as a conscious entity put it to use. In addition to this, other conscious lives within you also use the programming.

What is called the subconscious is basically programming that is used by consciousness in various degrees.

Reader comment: Actually a computer has an OS [Operating System] and a BIOS [Basic Input-Output System] that operates below the OS. It is a crude analogy to consciousness and sub-consciousness in humans.

If you compare a computer to a human mind then you have higher levels of programming analogous to the conscious part of the mind and lower level programs extending down to the BIOS. Where the human mind is different from a computer, and where the analogy fails, is that a computer has no free will, no power of decision.

I would say the mind is like a computer in many respects. It has higher level programming which we are sometimes conscious of and this is what we call “awareness.” However we have many programs that operate below that level which we are not directly aware of, but on which our awareness totally depends [just as higher levels of programming in a computer depend on lower levels the details of which the higher level is totally uninformed of].

JJ: The brain and the mind are two different things. The mind interacting with the brain creates conscious awareness as we know it. A computer has no mind or conscious awareness but is like a brain that can be used by one with consciousness.

He tells us that the computer is made of two basic ingredients. The first is BIOS [Basic Input-Output System] and the second the operating system. Perhaps a third with be the RAM memory which they both use.

All three of these are within the physical brain. One thing we can all agree upon is that the brain does indeed store memory which we use. They say that new memories are encoded in the hippocampus and then eventually transferred to the frontal lobes for long-term storage. Perhaps the hippocampus is like the RAM and the frontal lobes correspond to the hard drive storage.

The rest of the brain is comparable to the BIO and would include the processor and any other components. If we studied the makeup of the brain and how it works we could find correspondences to the various ingredients.

The interesting question is where is the operating system? One might think it corresponds to our consciousness, but it is not conscious, but created through a conscious being writing it and piecing it together into a functioning whole.

So where is our operating system that is created through a conscious endeavor?

The reader steered us on the right track with this statement:

“If you read Ayn Rand she talks of emotions largely being the result of conscious programming. In her model our values program our emotions. How we feel about something depends on what we think.”

And what determines the unfolding of the emotional and thinking self?

It is the unfolding of the seven centers, the chakras.

Primitive man, who accesses just a couple centers, operates on system 1. As the pedals begin to unfold he moves to system 1.1. As a new center or major energy opens he moves to system 2 and so on until he obtains an operating system that functions at relative perfection.

So where is the conscious decision maker in the analogy?

It is the end user. After all, the computers we use are merely extensions of the brain. In a way a computer is a second brain that assists the first with abilities the natural brain does not have – like a flawless memory that can be retrieved.

So where does the programmer fit in? This is comparable to the Higher Self, or the soul. This is conscious intelligence that guides us in moving toward a higher operating system that uses more advanced programming.

Analogies are rarely exact but are quite accurate in principle and contemplating them brings much light.

The universe is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper. – Eden Phillpotts

Sept 12, 2013

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Sending Light, Love and Power

September 4, 2026 Joseph Dewey

Sending Light, Love and Power

A reader makes this comment: Both Glenys and Wayne died from a dis-ease. Wayne was JJ’s best friend and yet JJ could not “save” Wayne’s life or take away Wayne’s sins or stop him from having a heart attack. The same with Glenys. She died of cancer which was behind her nose. JJ didn’t heal that cancer. I bet many of her good friends prayed for her and sent her Love, Light and Power, but the dis-ease still killed her.

JJ: Since a good deal of time has passed since Glenys’ death perhaps I can relate more details of my experiences with her.

She had a beloved female friend that was like a soul mate to her who became ill and wanted to know if she could be healed. I contemplated this and unfortunately the answer I received was that she would soon die for she had work to do on the other side and from there would keep a connection with Glenys.

I debated as whether to tell her my answer and decided to go ahead. When I did, Glenys was upset and told me that I was wrong because she had received a definite message that her friend would live.

A few weeks later her friend died. Again, Glenys was upset and questioned how she could have been wrong and why I was correct. I contemplated again and told her I had the impression that I received this message as a foreshadowing of something to come. That sometime in the future I would tell her something important that she would doubt and then I would remind her that I was correct about her friend and that she should give consideration to my words.

About a year or so later Glenys came down with cancer and after a time contacted me for help. She said she couldn’t understand why she had the disease for she ate a great diet and did her best to follow the spiritual path. She then asked me what the cause was so perhaps she could negate it and be cured.

I contemplated again and received an answer, but I knew it was an answer she would not like or agree with. I wrote her and told her that I would only give her the answer if she would give me her word that she would not be upset and would keep her mind open and consider it.

She said that would be no problem so I explained to her what I saw as the principal cause and how to neutralize it.

The reply I received back was disappointing. She basically told me I was full of #$%*[` and how dare I say such things to her. Obviously, I did not understand her one little bit.

Then shortly thereafter I received a scathing letter from her boyfriend saying a similar thing but in stronger language. Who did I think I was anyway?

I then wrote back and reminded her of our disagreement concerning her friend. I told her that this was the time that I told her would come where we would have a disagreement and that she should consider my words.

This seemed to upset her even more and I didn’t hear from her again for a while. When I did it was more for exchanging information than a dialog between friends.

Unfortunately, none of her treatments worked and she had a horrific struggle with the disease for about a year before she died.

Now, from the above writing it may sound like I just tune into the Powers-That-Be and get lots of specific answers. Sometimes this happens but often I do not and just have to use my best judgment.

I also tried to save my friend, Wayne’s life. Artie and I both saw that he was heading toward an early death and we tried to guide him toward a healthier lifestyle.

Wayne had a big heart and he had an enlarged heart when he died. He helped many people but when they betrayed him or didn’t appreciate him, he felt resentment and this was tough on him. He also felt a great sense of responsibility to help people who couldn’t help themselves and he had a tumor on the back of his neck which I interpreted as a symbol of the burden he felt.

Then he was addicted to diet sodas, one of the worst things you can ingest, and he ate all kinds of donuts and pastries made with white flour and fructose. We told him these were terrible for his system and he agreed but made no changes.

Unfortunately, he died much too young but he was somewhat frustrated with life and almost looked forward to passing over.

Stephen asked about sending love or healing energy to those in need. There is no problem with doing this, especially if you pick up that the person or persons are seeking help. The dangerous ones to send love energy to are those of a low vibration who can do some damage. Someone like a Hitler or a Saddam Hussein will just transmute the love energy to selfish desire energy and use it for dark purposes.

Helping Others

Reader: In fact, after listening to the audio of the gathering on helping others, JJ seemed specifically adamant that one should not help other people, unless they “ask” for the help first.

JJ: There seems to be some confusion on this subject so I will clarify.

The basic idea I was presenting is that it is not a good idea to attempt to help someone who doesn’t want your help or is not seeking help. My ex-wife was a good example of how this can backfire. She had a half sister who was mentally challenged but was taking care of herself. She had a job as a maid and lived in the motel. My wife decided that with a little help she could improve her life and against my wishes offered to take her in and assist her in improving her condition.

She drove 2000 miles picked her up and brought her to Boise.

The next couple months were a living hell and my wife finally demanded that I get rid of her sister or she was leaving me.

I rented her a room and the sister was an albatross around my neck for the next four years just because my wife was trying to help someone who didn’t really want it or appreciate it.

Does this mean that we should never help anyone unless they specifically approach us and ask?

Of course not. I have never advocated such a thing and have always taught that you cannot go by black and white rules for there are exceptions in all things that require the Second Key of Judgment.

If you pass by a car that has run off the road and you suspect there may be injuries it would be crazy to not help because you have not been audibly asked.

If help is needed and obviously wanted by a person and the person cannot help himself then it is a good thing to assist.

People ask for help in different ways. Some may approach another directly and audibly ask for it. BUT there are innumerable others who are seeking help and know not where to find it. Many of these people pray to God regularly asking and still others cry themselves to sleep in need. Even though such people may not have approached you directly they have still been seeking and asking for help. In such cases you are still helping those who have asked for help. You are an extension of God and if they ask God for help and you give it then God answers their prayers.

When to not give help.

[1] When the person does not ask you, God or anyone else for it, or seem to want it.

[2] When helping makes you an enabler, making the person dependent on you for the indefinite future.

[3] When the request is not just.

If you mean to keep as well as possible, the less you think about your health, the better. – Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.

Aug 20, 2013

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Mysteries of Reincarnation

September 3, 2026 Joseph Dewey

Mysteries of Reincarnation

Question: Was Hitler ever one of the Disciples of Jesus? Someone like Judas for example?

Unlikely. DK said he was one of the Lords of Dark Face in the days of Atlantis. It is unlikely such a one would either join or be selected by Jesus. It is more likely he would have been one of the priests who wanted him crucified.

Question: Is there some rule about the time spent between incarnations?

There is no rule about the time between incarnations. it may be six months or a thousand years depending on the need, the opportunity and the will of the soul. I was asked when Hitler may come back. Hopefully Hitler sunk so low into darkness that he will not be able to incarnate for a while, but you never know. He could be out there somewhere. I think I would recognize him if he were to surface. So far, I have not seen him.

A reader quotes me as follows: “Even one with a high degree of soul contact does not get all his answers in the short term. But the answer to every question is available to those who seek and do not give up. If the disciple continues on his quest and endures to the end, he will one day find, in an unexpected moment, the answer to his question.”

Question: Is this also because of the principle of cycles?

JJ: Not directly. It is created by a point of tension which can manifest in and out of the various cycles. However, there are cycles where we are more sensitive to the soul.

The soul is always available. The distance between the seeker and the soul is determined more by the seeker than the soul though there are times when the soul pays more attention to us than others.

The Solar Angel has passed through all the stages of mortality and has a knowledge of things that we are seeking and is available to assist those who are sensitive to it.

Question: Does asking and seeking help one to tap into their spiritual intelligence more so than their super computer brain intelligence?

You are the programmer and your brain is only as accurate as the information it has. In addition the programming for running your body was already built in at birth.

Seeking from higher intelligence eventually puts you in contact with higher intelligence.

The Oneness Principle is created by the merging of all higher intelligence connected to this earth. When you tap into it, then the language of principles becomes clear.

Question: Do you regret not following your early desire to be a rocket scientist?

JJ: Being a dreamer there are lots of things I could enjoy doing, but unfortunately, we must limit ourselves to have any degree of success. I have always asked myself what the most productive and useful thing I could be doing for humanity. Since I came to the conclusion you mentioned about the age of 13, I have changed my mind and decided that there was a greater need for spiritual engineering. If the earth gets set straight toward a new age of peace I may decide to come back and concentrate on taking us to the stars.

Question: You said you thought that previous lives of Hitler were Napoleon, and King Charles XII of Sweden. Have you ever examined their handwriting?

JJ: No, but that would be interesting to check. I gathered my evidence from studying the men in history.

Reader: There is a stronger comparison between Hitler and Charles. Napoleon seems a bit different. Napoleon loved the common vices of men. Both Hitler and Charles seem to have little or no interest in them.

JJ: Such interests will vary from life to life but the astounding similarity between the three was their tremendous will to prevail. It is rare in history to find individuals with such will power and these three definitely had a strong endowment of it. It’s too bad that such a powerful will was not directed toward the freedom of the individual. In addition, all three were defeated by the terrible Russian winters.

Reader: The three have similar tactics on the battlefield – allowing for the differences in technology between the time periods. Napoleon’s ability to move heavy cannon around the battlefield in quick order is a pre-cursor to Hitler’s blitzkrieg tactics. The pre-occupation among the three with invading Russia is weird. They all loved war more than anything else.

JJ: Agreed. It is eerie how similar the three were in their approach. A book giving a great overview of Charles XII is Peter the Great by Robert Massie. When I saw the raw determination Charles had to defeat Peter, I could just see Hitler as the entity playing that role.

Question: Do you think that this Keys group attracts predominantly one type of “brain”? Which one?

JJ: Metaphysical and new age groups attract mostly females. One thing interesting about our group is that it is a pretty even mix. At the gatherings we have a near equal number of males and females. A number of people have commented that this is unusual to them as most such groups are predominately female. Then as far as those who actually post on the Keys, I would say the males dominate here – not because of their numbers but because they just post more. I think some females do not post because they do not want to engage in anything that could bring conflict.

I would guess that the group as a whole is like me – slightly centered in the Left brain or the male energy, but pretty balanced overall as evidenced by the mixture at the gatherings.

Question: If soul contact is like a doorway to higher realms, then what is the lower wrong door?

JJ: There is no significant door before soul contact. There are merely choices between the illusions, and a lot of trial and error that eventually brings the seeker to the door.

After contact has been made, and the seeker goes through the door, he eventually comes to two paths or doors. The Right-hand path leads to higher worlds, inclusiveness and livingness, and the Left-hand path leads to a rejection of soul contact, extreme selfishness and spiritual death.

If dogs could talk, it would take a lot of fun out of owning one. – Andrew A. Rooney

Aug 4, 2013

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

The Complete Truth

September 2, 2026 Joseph Dewey

The Complete Truth

The Reader from my last post continues: It all boils down to subjectivism and relativity in finding the truth. One paradigm is replaced by another. One truth — by a more true truth.

JJ: There is no such thing as a more true truth. If a thing is true then it is true and nothing else is true. If attention is shifted to something else that is true then the first thing is still true.

For instance, if your attention is on 2=2=4 and is shifted to 8+8=16 then 2+2 still equals four and it equals nothing else.

Reader: What is more true: to say that a physical body is connected to astral body by a silver cord or by cigarette smoke? Both are not true. It just our way of interpreting something we do not fully know.

JJ: The truth has nothing to do with interpretation. Either the astral body is connected to the physical by a silver cord or it is not. Either it is composed of cigarette smoke or it is not. There is no grey area for something that is true. A thing or statement is either true or false. If two statements contradict then both cannot be true. Either one is true and one is false or they are both false.

Reader: However there exist complete truths. A complete truth always takes place if you create something and fully master and control it.

JJ: I think you are using the wrong word in what you are trying to say. There exists complete knowledge of various principles, ideas, concepts etc. This complete knowledge may be composed of thousands of truths and each truth is a complete piece of data.

Reader: For example, Euclid made his geometry based on several axioms. In that system the sum of the angles of a triangle is always 180 degrees. This is an absolute truth. He created it by definition. We accept it if we accept the Euclidian system altogether.

JJ: Because a truth is defined within a system does not mean the truth is changeable or relative. If we divided the circle into 180 degrees instead of 360 then the angles of his triangle would be 90 degrees rather than 180 and the truth of his equations would still be the same ratios. Pi is 3.14 in any system.

Similarly, if we write 2+2=4 in Spanish nothing changes. Just because we use different words does not change the equation or the truth.

This is really basic reasoning if you think of it. Sometimes we should stay with what we learned in the third grade.

Reader: But when it comes to seeking for the truth in something broader — the quest for truth becomes a quest for refining models in one’s minds.

JJ: This does not apply to me. There are plenty of models that make our current reality and as I seek for truth, I define the truths I see using the models already available. No need to reinvent the wheel and create new ones. Instead of refining a model I seek to refine my understanding of what is and express it within the current model.

The reader quotes LWK: “Whatever one knows that conforms with what is, is true.”

Reader: This is far better definition than JJ gave. It has two very important words: “one knows”.

JJ: The definition I gave was not mine but the dictionary. The one given by lwk is more concise and we both agree is a good one.

Reader: If JJ got a more sensitive radio receiver or a receiver with shortwave bands and explored more radio stations, he could have found that there exists another radio station even better than his current favorite 670 KHz.

JJ: If I found a thousand stations I like better than my current favorite the truth would not be changed. The truth is this: as of this day, Aug 4, 2013 on planet earth this is my favorite station. Changing my mind tomorrow does not alter the truth of today. You should read my past posts about points of truth in time and space. They are not relative and do not change. It is true that what I like may change, but what I like at a point in time and space does not. I didn’t like peas as a kid and now I do. The truth that I didn’t like peas as a kid will be true for all eternity. That truth or any other truth does not change and you cannot tell me one that does. It is impossible for truth to change. Because our understanding changes does not mean that truth changes. If what we believe to be true changes this does not cause truth to change. The truth is still true.

The fact that circumstances change does not mean the truth changes. It only means circumstances change. In fact, it is a truth that change is always occurring in the worlds of form.

Reader: I would be more cautious and paraphrase your “The Truth shall set you Free” into:

“Replacing illusions with better illusions is setting you freer and making you feel happier.”

JJ: It is true that we all have illusions to unravel and one illusion is often replaced with another illusion that contains more truth than the old one. None of us knows all truth but all of us know many things that are true. Putting the pieces we call truth together so an accurate picture of reality is formed is the great quest.

LWK: Maybe they ought to add a new logical fallacy to the list. You could call it:

The argument from definition

Basic idea is when a person tries to define a word so that only her conclusion is “logical.”

JJ: Good point. Many do define words in their own way making any other conclusion other than their own valid in their minds.

I always just go by the dictionary definition unless some original new meaning is needed which is rare indeed.

As far as truth goes 99% of the people would accept as truth that my favorite station is what I honestly declare it to be. Our friend is defining truth to be the ultimate cause behind all things that can never be understood by us. Since it cannot be understood by us then it does not exist to our consciousness. if it does not exist to our consciousness then it does not exist for us. If truth does not exist then it is useless to talk about a subject that is a no thing.

An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn’t happen. – Earl Wilson

Aug 3, 2013

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

The Truth is Really True

September 1, 2026 Joseph Dewey

The Truth is Really True

A reader claimed that we cannot find any truth because of the illusion we live it. As an example, he says this:

“Let us say that you take the statement ‘The Sun is bright’ as truth. Well, it is not the truth. Sun is not bright. Brightness is only a perception or illusion created in your brain because your eyes happen to be sensitive to certain energy photons.”

JJ: I would agree with him if he had said that it is not possible for us in our present state to find the ultimate truth or the complete truth, but it is indeed possible to find many things that are absolute truths as indicated by the Course in Miracles:

“For if what is not true is true as well as what is true, then part of truth is false. And truth has lost its meaning. Nothing but the truth is true, and what is false is false.”

There are many things that are absolutely true. Millions of truths can be found in mathematics. For instance, 2+2=4 and does not equal anything else.

Now let us examine the reader’s statement that he says is not true. “The sun is bright.” He says this is not true because it is only a perception. In other words, the brightness of a thing is relative to the eyes of the beholder, for if our sun was placed side by side with Sirius, which is many times brighter, then the sun would not seem so bright.

Does this make the original statement untrue?

Absolutely not. When someone says the sun is bright, they are comparing its brightness to other things not as bright. So, in comparison to the moon and stars it is absolutely true that the sun is bright.

To say that you cannot make true measurements within a standard that is accepted by your consciousness is illusion.

If I say it is 100 degrees Fahrenheit out there and you say that is not true because it is 37.7 degrees Celsius you are just making a contentious and false argument. Both statements are absolutely true within the reference points of accepted measurements here on Planet Earth.

Absolute truth exists within relative measurements. If a thing is bright to me and dim to a visiting alien then it is still true that it is bright to me. I care not how bright it is to the alien.

There is truth within illusion. For instance, you may dream you are being chased by a monster and wake up to your relief and discover the monster is not real. Even so, it is absolutely true that you did dream of a monster and had the experience of being chased by him.

Our whole universe is created out of wavelengths [an absolute truth] so in reality solid matter is an illusion. Even, so it is still true that I am having the experience of sitting in a solid chair. It is absolutely true that the chair is solid to my reference points.

The path to greater truth is to first accept the truths that we see about us. If you dream that you are being chased by a monster it will not make the monster go away if you just think, “I am not being chased by a monster.” Outside of waking up, the best thing you can do is turn and face the monster and fight it. I did that once in a dream and beat the dickens out of it. That was a wonderful experience.

I have already written a lot about the subject of absolute and relative truth. If you want to check it out go HERE

Then scroll down and read these post numbers:

107, 108, 109, 230,373, 390, 449, 802, 935 and 1124

A reader fives a mathematical formula about gravity and says it has been proven correct, but then asks, “But can this law of gravity be considered truth? No, because no one, no one scientist knows, WHY the celestial bodies KNOW that they have to be attracted to each other? The real truth is hidden.”

JJ: Why do you say that an incomplete knowledge about gravity negates the truth about its law and effects? That’s like saying that because you do not know how a radio works that it cannot be true that my favorite station is 670 on the dial. That’s silly.

If you do not know how gravity works then average people still know many truths about it. Here are some.

Gravity pulls us toward the earth.
If we jump over a cliff, we will hurt ourselves.
If we overeat, we will wind up weighing more.
Gravity keeps our orbit around the sun in place and consistent.

I could go on and on.

Conclusion: You do not need to know all truth about a subject to know some truths about it.

You do not need to know how consciousness originated to know the truth that you are conscious. Let us hope you are, anyway.

I figured you were using an unorthodox definition of truth. Here is what the dictionary says it is:

“The actual facts or information about something, rather than what people think, expect, or make up.”

What you are defining as truth is not even in the dictionary and to be technically correct you should have used something like “ultimate truth’ or “complete truth’ rather than just “truth.” Any fact or accurate piece of data is true.

The use of unorthodox definitions without clarifying how one is using the word is the cause of many disagreements where no real disagreements are to be had.

We had this problem when talking about law a while back. I tried to get everyone to use the dictionary definitions of the words “law’ and “legal,” and because all would not accept the same definitions we couldn’t get off page one in the argument.

You say that you do not go by the dictionary definition of truth and it appears that in your mind truth can never be discovered or known so it is pretty difficult to have a discussion with you about a subject that does not even exist in your mind.

For instance, because my favorite radio station is different than yours means to you that it is not true that I have a favorite radio. That is pretty strange thinking.

As I said, we had a discussion a while back on what was legal and because we could not agree on the meaning of the word the discussion was stopped in its tracks. I had about seven points I wanted to make and we couldn’t even get to point one because the word legal was a moving target. Truth seems to be a moving target in this case.

Torture numbers, and they’ll confess to anything. – Gregg Easterhrook

July 29, 2013

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

The Differences Between the Political Left and the Right

August 30, 2026 Joseph Dewey

The Differences Between the Political Left and the Right

(Note: When politics is discussed here, we attempt to stay away from an attack mode, especially toward individuals, but civilly discuss principles instead.)

Reader Comment: The Left/Right Paradigm in America is two illusions chasing one another.

JJ: They both have their illusions but both are creators of reality with which we must deal.

Reader: If the Right was the side of the Mind, they would be generating thoughts and ideas, not blindly trying to stop the Left at every turn.

JJ: And the Left tries to stop the Right at least as much. That’s what they do because they both see reality through different filters.

The fact that they both oppose each other does not indicate whether they are polarized in the mind or emotion.

Real workable ideas come from the atmic plane and when they filter down, they may appeal to either the mentally or emotionally polarized depending on how it suits their purpose or desire.

When I spoke of the polarization of the Right, I am not referring to higher mind, but the “analytical mind.” 90% of the members of both sides are polarized in the emotional/astral body and very few are able to use the pure reason of the upper mental body.

Also remember the meaning of the word “polarization.” The fact that one is polarized in the emotions or analytical mind does not mean that is their total influence. It only means the influence dominates.

For instance, most females are polarized in their right brain or the emotions, but this does not mean they do not also use their left analytical brain when it suits them.

Reader: Case in point: immigration reform.

Few in Congress ever come up with original ideas but when ideas do filter down they may be embraced in some warped manner by either party.

JJ: On immigration the Republicans do take the more analytical approach. Most want the border secured before we liberalize immigration. The Democrats feel that they want to pass a bill legalizing the illegals now and all will work out okay. The Republicans definitely have the left-brain approach here.

The same goes for the application of the law where Republicans want current laws enforced and if they do not work, we should replace them.

Democrats pass laws that feel good and then often are not concerned about enforcing them. This particularly applies to immigration.

We may not like all laws, but without consistent the rule of law a nation will deteriorate into lawlessness and chaos.

Reader: If the Right was the side of the Mind, they would be able to present rational ideas, not hysterical religious rhetoric for why marriage equality should not be the law of THIS land.

JJ: Both sides promote their ideas with religious fever. What you want to look for in polarization is not whether the person is flawless in reasoning but whether he presents his case using emotion or reasoning.

As far as gay marriage goes the Left pretty much say they feel it is just and good as their main case.

The Right analytically breaks things down and makes their case. You may not agree with this but it is presenting a case in what they see as logical details.

On this issue both the left and the right use reason and emotion, but the left will appeal more to emotion and the right to reasoning.

The fact that the Right is polarized in the analytical mind does not mean that they are always the most reasonable for they have not mastered illusion.

In our society emotion has ruled over mind for thousands of years by the left and the right. It is desirable that mind rule over emotion and in a few people this does happen. These people face an uphill battle in presenting their case but when they can prove their point beyond emotional doubt then even the astral ones will eventually accept. For example when the automobile was introduced many felt that it was just a nuisance, while the thinking people saw its potential, but eventually the emotional ones also embraced it.

Reader: The Course in Miracles says that when Truth is placed in opposition to Falsehood, Truth will always win, hands down.

JJ: Truth will eventually win but many will embrace a falsehood as being true even when wisely contrasted. It takes time for truth to become manifest to those in illusion.

Reader: The fact that neither side has won shows that neither side represents the complete truth.

JJ: As long as there are two competing sides neither will be declared the winner. Their contrasting viewpoints does help the public in the middle see truth in ways they could not if there were no contrast.

Without contrast we could not see anything revealed by the light of the sun or the light of the soul.

Two Different Approaches

I’ve been thinking about the subject of the polarization of the Left and the Right and I thought I would tabulate some of their differences.

I stated that the Right is polarized in the left brain/ analytical mental area and the Left centers more on the right brain/ emotional nature. A lot of people, especially from the Left would disagree with this as many of them consider the Right as being flat earthers who do not even accept science, or what to them appears to be common sense.

Discussing polarization is a much different animal than talking of intelligence. There are some very intelligent people polarized on both sides of the brain. Determining that polarization just tells us the direction their intelligence is focused.

Here is a tabulation illustrating the differences of the two sides. Keep in mind that all is not black and white. Both sides analyze and feel but one will always dominate more than the other.

[1] The Budget

The Right approaches this from the analytical mental angle. They advocate balancing the budget as much as possible for if we overspend too much the whole financial system could collapse as it has done for other nations in history. They have not been successful in accomplishing this and often violate their own principles, but it is part of their agenda.

The Left approaches this from the emotional side. If they feel a project is benevolent and desirable then they are willing to purchase it with borrowed money without taking the time to analyze what the end result will be if we continue to buy programs with money we do not have.

[2] How the money is spent.

The Right supports spending money on defense and national security. Their analytical minds tell then that even if there is not a great threat in the present, history tells us that we can expect something to crop up soon and we must be prepared for it. They only support social programs that are essential and put emphasis on self-reliance which appeals to the analytical mind.

The Left seeks to defund the military any time that we are not facing an imminent threat. If it feels like we are not threatened in the present then it feels like it will be that way tomorrow. Instead of concentrating on security they seek to spend money on programs that feel good, even though they are not essential.

[3] Authority

The Right does not support strong authority or powerful centralized government that does things for us that we can do for ourselves. It takes analytical thinking to be self-sufficient and this is the direction they pursue.

The Left wants strong authority and a strong central government that prevails over states and restricts individual freedom. This takes the thinking out of much of our decision-making and forces the people toward focusing on emotion.

(Note: This was illustrated during Covid when the left supported strong authority in forcing many to take the vaccine who did not want it and the right wanted to leave it up to the individual)

[4] Career choices

The Right tends to gravitate toward business, especially in the small and intermediate range. They are big on being entrepreneurs and working for themselves if at all possible. To be successful in business requires a lot of analytical thinking.

The Left gravitates toward bureaucratic work, especially in government. These jobs often require little analytical thinking but provide security which appeals to the emotional side.

The Left excels in the entertainment industry and creative arts. Highly charged emotional people do well here and the mental types are seen as backward.

[5] Arguments

Though both sides use facts in their arguments the Right tends to analytically piece various facts together to make a point.

For instance, on global warming the Right will lay out quite a number of facts whereas the Left will make maybe one statement and expect that to settle the argument. The most popular one is, “All scientists agree there is climate change.” By declaring this statement, the guy seems to think the argument is settled even though there are a thousand loose ends to clear up.

[6] The Constitution

The Right definitely approaches this from the analytical side. Many study it carefully analyzing the meaning of every word and every phrase.

The Left tends to read the Constitution much more casually and interpret it the way that feels right rather than how it may literally read.

That’s probably enough to make my point. We could go through all the differences and discover how one side approaches it from a more analytical side and the other from the feeling side.

[7] How they handle things when they do not get their way.

The Right is, of course, disappointed and may complain about unfairness about what is seen as a bad situation, but they regroup and attempt to work within the system to make change.

On the other hand, this is where the Left really shows their emotional polarization. When they do not get their way, instead of regrouping and merely planning a strategy, they will often protest and march in the street. This they do at least ten to one more than the Right. In addition, they will often confront those who are at the center of their discontent by going to their homes and even harassing their kids. If they are really upset they will turn violent, break windows, set cars on fire and physically attack police and innocent bystanders. This type of reaction is definitely from the emotions rather than the mind.

Examples of this are several of the most famous trials in recent memory.

The first was O.J. Simpson. Almost all the Right thought he should be judged guilty and most of the Left were sympathetic toward his innocence. When the Right did not get their way there were no marches and no violence. Even OJ himself did not consider his life being in danger and he was seen in public regularly after his trial.

On the other hand, after the Left did not get their way in the trial of the policemen involved in the Rodney King beating the reaction was based on pure unbridled raw emotion. Mobs formed and extreme violence erupted with many innocent people being injured. And it wasn’t just whites that were attacked but many Asians and black businesspeople suffered damages.

Then when the Left didn’t get their way in the Zimmerman trial, again there were protests. The media portrays these as being peaceful and yes, the reaction is not as violent as with the Rodney King case but there has been quite a bit of violence that has not been reported.

Unlike the OJ aftermath, Zimmerman is in fear of his life and has received many death threats, some of them from public figures published in the media. In addition, his family has received threats. These threats create a great contrast to the problems OJ faced which were merely of a legal nature created by the rational (but enraged) mind of Fred Goldman.

“The vaccine should be tested on politicians first. If they survive, the vaccine is safe. If they don’t, then the country is safe.” —Monika Wisniewska

July 21, 2013

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Understanding Karma

August 29, 2026 Joseph Dewey

Understanding Karma

Question: Of the 5,000 Light workers in Germany who were supposed to pick up on the Shamballa energy, did all, any, or many of them work in the German army for Hitler? Did any of them kill Jews? Did any of them go down the wrong path with Hitler, instead of working against Hitler?

JJ: A lot of them worked for Hitler including Stauffenberg until he realized the situation. Some are proud of how the handled a difficult situation and others not so much.

Question: If so, what is their karma in this lifetime if they have reincarnated?

JJ: Different for each one. Many learned the lesson to not follow an unjust authority.

Question: Would they be able to pay off any bad karma through service in this lifetime?

JJ: Sure. Service is the best and least painful way to pay off karma.

Comment: I only ask, because I swear that I was a German man and my family were German too in our past lifetime.

JJ: If you sense this there is a good possibility it is true.

Question: Also, what happens to those who die like my Grandparents who had incorrect beliefs?

JJ: In our life review we become aware of all of our mistakes and illusions and make plans to correct them in the next life.

Question: On a spiritual level or a higher level, is Justice weighed up in the balance of Karma when in this type of scenario, George Zimmerman shot the younger guy in self-defense, but…… is this because the younger guy had killed Zimmerman in a previous lifetime, so Cause and Effect caught up with him?

JJ: This doesn’t mean that Martin killed Zimmerman in a previous life, though that could be the case. It could be just one of those situations that arise through our decisions. But because it is having such a worldwide impact, it is possible the event was planned out on a soul level to assist humanity in learning a lesson.

Question: Does this now balance out the two karmic lifetime crossovers of these two men, so that in their next lifetime, they won’t murder each other or anyone else?

JJ: The most likely scenario is that Martin killed someone [didn’t have to be Zimmerman] in a past life and incurred some debt and this was payment for it.

Question: When one kills another person “in self-defense”, then what sort of karma or effect does one accrue personally in how the karma plays out?

JJ: If the choice was self defense or to allow yourself to be killed then there would be little or no karma. However, the forces that led to the confrontation are the result of past decisions, and karma, and they need to be balanced.

Questions: How do the scales of Karmic Justice carry to fruition the ending of a negative

effect for any particular person?

JJ: Lots of ways. More than I have time to explain here, but I have written quite a bit about it in the past.

Concerning the Zimmerman case, I get a strong impression on George’s brother Robert. He is a very advanced soul and I get the impression his Higher Self saw this situation evolving before his birth and he placed himself in the family in an attempt to be a spokesman for truth and justice in this confusing situation for the masses.

Reader comment: It clearly says here that Jesus died for our sins. It right here in the Bible. So far you have not proven that Jesus did not die for our sins. It right here in plain English.

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” 1 Corinthians 15:3

JJ: My last article does not say that Jesus did not die for our sins, but that he did, and the point is misunderstood. The Greek meaning of sin is to miss the mark or error and my point was that Jesus died to correct our errors in thinking which in essence is dying for our sins. His example wipes away our errors or sins so long as we accept the correction.

Question: You once wrote that we never lost the knowledge of restoring our bodies, how does one do that exactly and why are you not at the body age of 25?

JJ: I do not recall saying that – especially in the way you are interpreting it.

Everyone who is born will age fairly normally until they become a master. Then they can rejuvenate themselves so long as they are fulfilling higher purpose.

I am not yet a master so my aging process is proceeding normally. I am thankful that I have been blessed with good health throughout my life and I take no prescription drugs. That, of course, with a few exceptions, that helps the overall health.

We have all the knowledge of the universe programed into the atoms of our various bodies but that does not mean that you or I can access and make use of it all with our current limitations. As we remove our limitations the access becomes greater. To recreate a past physical body one would have to be working on the Seventh initiation or higher. To extend life indefinitely one must pass the Fifth. Not all Fifth-degree initiates extend their lives as it is sometimes more beneficial to be reborn in a new and more useful body.

Talk is cheap- except when Congress does it. – Cullen Hightower

July 11, 2013

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Forgiveness and Cause

August 28, 2026August 28, 2026 Joseph Dewey

Forgiveness and Cause

Reader Comment: I see some benefits that this psychic mechanism called guilt can have in many circumstances. For instance, when somebody lies to somebody and realizes he did a mistake, guilt makes him realize that and tell the truth.

JJ: The benefits are very minimal and the harm from guilt is very great. The Biblical word for sin is the Greek HAMARTANO which means “to miss the mark.” In other words when the Greeks 2000 years ago shot at a target with an arrow and missed, they “sinned” [HAMARTANO] or missed the target.

Now imagine if a target shooter felt guilty when he missed the target. He may throw the bow down and not feel worthy to pick it up and try again for another month.

But when guilt is removed and common sense replaces it, he no longer curses himself for missing but tries again immediately. The person who moves forward without guilt progresses much more rapidly than one hampered by it. He may feel bad when a mistake is made but feeling bad for missing a target is much different than the unworthy feeling created by guilt which often immobilizes the individual.

Reader: What about forgiveness? Couldn’t forgiveness help us transcend the retribution morality.

JJ: Of course. The greatest benefit of forgiveness comes to the one who is the victim. If one harbors a grievance it can do harm to soul and body. On the other hand, forgiveness does not undo the results of the sin or offense.

Let us go back to our example. The offender stole the operation money from the victim and his daughter died just before she would have accepted Christ. Let us suppose the victim forgives the thief. Does it bring his daughter back to life?

No.

The forgiveness is good for his soul and body but both the victim and the offender live the rest of their lives in a world where the effect of the theft remains. The girl remains dead and the father misses her until he dies.

Forgiveness lifts a dark cloud over the soul but the effects of our actions remain.

Reader: If the effects remain, isn’t forgiveness the solution that Christ brought to the world for ending what it appears to be an infinite chain of effects, that can no longer be balanced via the retribution system? We seem to be in a vicious system, as we keep harming each other and create endless karma chains. Shouldn’t we focus more on forgiveness?

JJ: Yes, forgiveness ends the cycle of retribution but it does not negate the effects of the offense. In our example the guy’s daughter is still dead no matter how much he forgives. Forgiveness does not negate effects and the girl is not brought back to life.

Through forgiveness, however, he does not propagate additional harm by attacking the thief and creating a new round of retribution.

A lot of people have the mistaken idea that forgiveness neutralizes effects but cause and effect always plays out. There is not one exception in our billions of years of history. Forgiveness itself is a cause that produces an effect.

Reader Comment: Where I live religious people are mainly judging and acting, albeit entirely subconsciously more often than not, based on fear. They understand everything through fear, submission and retribution.

JJ: Many think this problem applies particularly to religious people but it applies to over 99% of humanity but is hidden from people through their blind spots.

For instance, doctors are controlled by the same beastly fear when they tremble at the thought of endorsing an alternative treatment for cancer, even though it may work better than radiation.

The politician is terrified at going against the mindset of his party.

People are terrified in challenging the IRS.

A journalist is terrified at writing something that goes against the mindset of his fellow workers and editors.

Common people tap into what their group thought tells them is acceptable to believe and they accept without question or critical thinking.

New Age believers have many of the same fear based and illusionary beliefs but merely use a different vocabulary.

For instance, instead of preaching an apocalyptic end they may preach a shift into the 5th dimension that will take the righteous and leave the unenlightened behind to be destroyed.

A Course in Miracles

I know this has discussed before and I tried to search for it. But someone was recently telling me about “the course” and there is a meet up group on Mondays near my house.

Don’t know too much, sure there are kernels of truth etc…but sort of beastly it seems to me…or at least how it was presented to me. Anyways…what’s the consensus on this?

JJ: A Course in Miracles [ACIM] does have some good material in it. The most important teachings guide the student toward the removal of grievances. “The truth is true and nothing else is true” is my favorite quote from it.

Even so, any writing, even mine or the Bailey writings, can become a beast of authority if teachers insist his version of the teachings be accepted or no conversation is allowed that seems to contradict or give additional enlightenment. I know many of the ACIM students seem to tap into a particularly beastly mindset that does not allow the consideration of alternative opinions.

I have been thrown off or threatened to be thrown off of discussion groups where I presented unorthodox interpretations of ACIM material.

The worst form of injustice is pretended justice. – Plato

July 10, 2013

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE